If they want to tag Dems as angry, then they should be angry damn it!

[cantstandbush]

I want to see some anger on every pundit show when a Dem appears. I want to hear a Dem say "You're damn right Dems are angry. We are angry that the President is trying to privative SS in such a cowardly way by sticking it in the budget and never mentioning it publicly." "You're damn right that we are angry about being misled (lied to) about WMD and the pretense of conferring with the UN when the President had already made up his mind to invade Iraq. You're damn right we are angry about the President misleading so many Americans into believing that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. We're damn angry about cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and student loans and cuts in education. .... And it would behoove the rest of America to get a little angry about what is happening to and in this country as well as getting angry about what we are doing around the globe."
We do not apologize for being angry but we do apologize for not getting angrier sooner."

[demosincebirth]

1. I've been pissed since 2000, and every day

I get angrier

[niyad]

2. same here. "if you are not angry, you are not paying attention" I AM

paying attention, and I am DAMNED angry.

[scot]

4. BEING angry is an emotion,

and unassailable as such. SHOWING emotion is a strategic decision, and needs to be contemplated in that light.

[babylonsister]

5. Welcome to DU, scot. Hang out here long enough, and you too

will be angry but might vent here when you feel that showing emotion might cause bodily harm. :hi:

[scot]

6. Already I feel the steam escaping!!

[demosincebirth]

13. Is that the same as being pissed?

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. rw want's you to be a happy guy as you get sodomized by jr.

That's not for me.

[norml]

7. It's all empty propaganda twaddle. In their propaganda they have only

positive personal characteristics, while their opponents have only negative personal characteristics.

In their propaganda every move they make is brilliant.

In their propaganda every move their opponents make is a blunder.

In their propaganda they are always winning, and their opponents are always losing.

Saying their opponents are angry is part of saying all their opponents arguments are based on emotion (meaning they are entirely irrational arguments), while saying all of their arguments are based on logic (meaning they are entirely rational arguments).

It's behavioral conditioning by word association and has nothing to do with the particulars of any real world situation.

There isn't a line of this empty twaddle that can't just as easily be turned around and applied (just as irrationally I might add) to them.

Am I the only one here who's studied this sort of thing?

[dweller]

9. NLP? n/t

dp

[Gemini Cat]

8. Exactly!

Recommended

[norml]

10. What I'm talking about is more primal, more elemental.

"Us All Positive"

"Them All Negative"

It doesn't even have to involve words.

If I make painfully rude noises every time I say your name, show your picture, or play your words, in time even you will wince at the sound of your own name, or at the sight of your own picture.

My point is not that we should turn to it as they do, but to recognize it for what it is, and to not be tripped out by it.

However if some goon says "You're all angry" rather than treating the statement as though it were something worthy of examination and refutation, realize it's entirely appropriate to either blow it off as nonsense, or to say "No, you're all angry" and then give them an example.

[Laelth]

11. Speaking for myself ...

I wish more Democrats were angry. There's certainly plenty to be angry about.

-Laelth

[cantstandbush]

12. Today on MTP was a prime example of why Dems can't beat Rethugs

They are simply NOT angry and they seem to be too stupid to recognize an opportunity to speak directly to the American people and tell them what they need to know. Daschale gave a very good 'speech' on why the FISA is not an obstacle to gathering intelligence BUT he never linked it to refutation of what the Republican said. Why do Dems seem to not be able to say "Sen. xxxxx is incorrect in what he (or she) is saying because".....AND THEN go on to explain their position.? Daschale explained the FISA act but never directly refuted what the Republican said. Dems do not know how to use the art of debate. Only a few know it and the Dems won't support them: Kucinich, Dean, Sharpton, etc.